Community involvement

[RELEVANT TO SATISFYING CRITERIA A.1, A.3 AND A.6]

Identify clearly the community(ies), group(s) or, if appropriate, individuals concerned with the proposed project. Describe the mechanisms for fully involving them in the preparation of the request as well as in the implementation of all the proposed activities and in their evaluation and follow-up.

This section should describe not only the participation of the communities as beneficiaries of the project and of financial support, but also their active participation in the project design; their perspectives and aspirations should be fully reflected in the proposed project.

Not fewer than 300 or more than 500 words

The surest guarantee of effectiveness and success in safeguarding activities is the widest possible participation of the community, group or individuals concerned and their active involvement at all stages, from the elaboration of a request to the future implementation of the project, if approved.

83. The first criterion for granting International Assistance is that ‘The community, group and/or individuals concerned participated in the preparation of the request and will be involved in the implementation of the proposed activities, and in their evaluation and follow-up as broadly as possible’ (criterion A.1). The shared preoccupation of evaluators and the Committee with community participation is signalled by the prominence given to this criterion within the Directives.

84. At its eighth session, for example, the Committee appealed to States Parties ‘to put the communities, groups and, if applicable, individuals concerned at the centre of all safeguarding measures and plans, to avoid top-down approaches and to identify solutions that emerge from the communities, groups and, if applicable, individuals themselves’.¹²⁰ This request echoed its decision of the previous year, when it ‘Reaffirm[ed] that the communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals whose intangible cultural heritage is concerned are

118 . Document 7.COM 10.

119 . In the ICH-01bis form, these matters are addressed in section 4.a, Participation of communities, groups and individuals concerned in the nomination and request process, and section 4.b, Participation of communities, groups and individuals concerned in the

implementation of the safeguarding plan proposed.

120 . Decision 8.COM 7; cf. Document 8.COM 7.

essential participants throughout the conception and elaboration of nominations, proposals and requests, as well as the planning and implementation of safeguarding measures, and invite[d] States Parties to devise creative measures to ensure that their widest possible participation is built in at every stage, as required by Article 15 of the Convention’.¹²¹

85. The remarks of the Consultative Body in 2012 are of particular relevance: it observed that ‘it is not only the timing of community participation, but more importantly the nature and quality of that participation, that are to be addressed in nominations, requests and proposals. Too often, it appeared that communities were seen as passive – albeit willing – sources of information or providers of consent.’¹²² The Body continued that safeguarding strategies and activities were often decided upon beforehand, and the communities were simply asked at a late stage for their concurrence: ‘in certain cases, moreover, the Body was concerned that even that process of consultation seemed to have been rushed and therefore not to have been as effective as it ought to be. Rarely were the communities, groups or individuals presented as active participants in the planning and decision-making process, even if this is what is expected by the criteria. The Consultative Body does not underestimate the difficulty in fully implicating communities in the safeguarding of their own heritage, but it is what the Convention requires.’¹²³

MECHANISMS TO INVOLVE THE COMMUNITIES AT EVERY STAGE

The International Assistance request cannot simply declare that communities have been or will be involved; rather, it needs to describe the specific mechanisms that were already used in the preparation of the request as well as those that will be used at every stage of the project’s implementation, evaluation and follow-up; the

Committee believes that such participation is the fundamental condition for safeguarding to be effective.

86. The introductory discussion of community participation provides further excerpts of the Committee’s and evaluators’ remarks over the years concerning the necessity of community participation at every stage of an International Assistance request and project. Section 18 of the request form does not therefore simply ask for a declaration that they have participated, but instead asks submitting States, echoing criterion A.1, to ‘describe the mechanisms for fully involving them in the preparation of the request as well as in the implementation of all the proposed activities and in their evaluation and follow-up’ (emphasis added). Evaluators and the Committee seek to understand how they were effectively involved, and how they will be in implementation and later, beyond a simple assertion that this has been and will be done. The Consultative Body emphasized, for example, ‘the importance of describing clearly what mechanisms have been used during the elaboration of the nomination or request to involve the communities fully’.¹²⁴

87. Along the same lines, with regard to Representative List nominations, the Subsidiary Body

‘wished to see more tangible evidence of their participation, with for instance descriptions of specific consultations and concrete contributions’.¹²⁵ More recently, the Subsidiary Body added that ‘communities should not be taken only as informants but that the nomination

121 . Decision 7.COM 7; cf. Decision 6.COM 7, Document 7.COM 7, Document 7.COM 10, Document 6.COM 7, Document 6.COM 10 and Document 5.COM INF.5.

122 . Document 7.COM 7.

123 . Document 7.COM 7; cf. Document 6.COM 7.

124 . Document 6.COM 7.

125 . Document 8.COM 8.

should demonstrate that communities are fully aware and cognizant of all the process in which they are being involved’.¹²⁶ The Convention does not seek to impose any one particular model or method of involving communities: rather, as the Consultative Body has stressed, States Parties are encouraged ‘to devise creative measures to ensure that the widest possible participation is built in at every stage of planning, design and implementation, as provided by Article 15 of the Convention’.¹²⁷

88. The Committee’s concern with community participation in the elaboration of requests derives from its belief that safeguarding programmes in which community inputs have already been reflected are more likely to be successful than those designed elsewhere and brought to the community later. This assumes that communities will be more motivated to invest their time and effort to see the project succeed if their aspirations and perspectives are already well-integrated in the strategy from the beginning, as the ICH-04 form indicates.

89. The Committee thus encouraged States Parties ‘to put the communities, groups and, if applicable, individuals concerned at the centre of all safeguarding measures and plans, to avoid top-down approaches and to identify solutions that emerge from the communities, groups and, if applicable, individuals themselves’.¹²⁸ For its part, the Consultative Body regretted that ‘there was often a lack of understanding and realization of the necessity to involve communities in developing the safeguarding plan.¹²⁹ Often seen only as informants or beneficiaries, the community members are rarely taken as key actors in the planning and implementation of safeguarding measures’.¹³⁰ The Subsidiary Body similarly ‘emphasized the importance of community involvement in the process of elaboration of safeguarding measures in order to ensure that the communities concerned are the beneficiaries of inscription and the increased attention it will bring, rather than States or private enterprises’.¹³¹ In particular, the Subsidiary Body pointed out (as also noted above),

‘safeguarding measures should address primarily communities and not the needs of researchers’.¹³²

90. It should not, however, be taken for granted that because the communities, groups or individuals concerned participated in the planning they will continue their involvement if the project is funded. The request form therefore asks submitting States to describe their future involvement as well – both in implementation and in monitoring and evaluation (see the discussion below of section 21).

91. Evaluators have acknowledged that the degree of participation of communities and groups may arguably be less in the earliest stages of elaborating an International Assistance request for inventorying than it must be in the case of safeguarding a particular element. A State Party may not wish to create huge expectations among numerous communities about their future involvement in an inventory project, for instance, when the funding for such a project is not yet in hand. They have emphasized, however, that it is nevertheless obligatory and should not be deferred until funding has been assured; the request should at a minimum

126 . Document 9.COM 10.

127 . Document 7.COM 7.

128 . Decision 8.COM 7; cf. Decision 9.COM 9.

129 Document 9.COM 9.a.

130 . Document 9.COM 9.a, Document 8.COM 7.a.

131 . Document 6.COM 13; cf. Document 9.COM 10.

132 . Document 5.COM 6.

‘describe in detail the basis on which beneficiary communities would be selected as well as the mechanisms for ensuring their widest possible participation.’¹³³

SELECTION OF ONE OR MORE COMMUNITIES

Submitting States are welcome to focus safeguarding activities on specific target communities, sub-communities or groups, for instance as a pilot project for a larger and more inclusive future project – but it is essential to explain the contours of the target group and justify the basis for its selection instead of other groups.

92. It is frequently the case that a submitting State will choose one or more communities as the reference communities for a particular nomination or request, even if the heritage itself may be practised more broadly. The Consultative Body acknowledged, for instance, ‘that an element could be shared within the same territory by several communities, groups and individuals’; however, the Body also ‘found that some nominations lacked information on the basis for selection of a particular community. The Consultative Body encourage[d] submitting States to provide a detailed explanation for the selection of the community involved in the nomination, especially when an element may be practised by several communities in an extended territory’.¹³⁴ The same advice was also offered by the Subsidiary Body: ‘The Representative List is, by its very nature, representative; certain elements are chosen for nomination, or certain communities, even if other communities practise similar elements. But the Subsidiary Body sought an explanation and justification of how and why a particular community and its expression were selected, without doubting the need to do so’.¹³⁵

93. In the case of inventorying, similarly, a State Party may wish to begin within a particular administrative region or several, rather than plunging immediately into a nationwide effort.

Perhaps a given community is well-situated geographically to host a training workshop and pilot inventory effort. Perhaps an active community organization will provide a strong implementing partner. There are many legitimate reasons that a project could be designed to focus on one among many communities practising an expression or in need of inventorying.

However, if the submitting State does not describe what principles and criteria guided such a selection, readers may be left to wonder whether a particular community might have been chosen simply because it is the Minister’s village, the President’s province or the electoral constituency of a member of a national council for intangible cultural heritage.